Strategic Ports Reporting Act

Bill Number: H.R. 1701
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: International Affairs
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2025-05-22: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Last Updated: 2026-07-10T19:58:20Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Strategic Ports Reporting Act (H.R. 1701) aims to enhance U.S. monitoring of efforts by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to build, buy, or control strategic foreign ports. It requires the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to map important global ports and conduct a study on PRC activities, with the goal of protecting U.S. national security and economic interests by ensuring open access to these ports and countering potential PRC dominance.

Key Provisions

Global Port Mapping (Section 2): The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, must create an updated map of foreign and domestic ports critical to U.S. military, diplomatic, economic, or resource interests. This includes identifying any direct or indirect PRC government or entity efforts to control these ports. The map must be submitted to specified congressional committees in unclassified form, with an optional classified annex.

Study and Report on Strategic Ports (Section 3): A joint study by the Secretaries must examine:
Definitions and U.S. interests in strategic ports (international ports or waterways deemed critical to U.S. national security or economic prosperity).
PRC plans and activities to expand control over these ports outside China, including through state-linked entities like China Ocean Shipping Company.
PRC promotion of tools like LOGINK (a logistics information system) and industry standards to influence maritime logistics.
Potential harms to U.S. and allied security/economic interests from PRC control.
U.S. measures to secure open access, provide alternatives to PRC investments, and mitigate risks.

The study can involve federally funded research centers. A report on findings must be submitted within one year of enactment to congressional committees, in unclassified form with an optional classified annex. The report includes:

Lists and assessments of PRC- and U.S.-controlled strategic ports.
Vulnerability analyses for U.S. and strategic ports.
PRC expansion strategies and national security threats (e.g., cyber risks to U.S. personnel/facilities).
A proposed strategy for trusted investments, using existing/new authorities, cost assessments, funding sources (public/private), and maintaining an updated port list.

Definitions (Section 4): Defines "appropriate congressional committees" (key House and Senate panels on transportation, commerce, armed services, foreign affairs, and intelligence); "relevant U.S. Government offices" (e.g., combatant commands, State/Defense Departments, intelligence offices, development finance corporation, Maritime Administration); and "strategic port" as a critical waterway/port for U.S. security or prosperity.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This act introduces new reporting and study requirements but does not amend or repeal prior laws. It mandates ongoing monitoring and strategic planning not previously required at this level of detail, potentially building on existing national security frameworks (e.g., intelligence assessments) by formalizing interagency coordination on port-specific PRC threats.

Potential Impacts

Government Agencies: Increases workload for the Departments of State and Defense, requiring resource allocation for mapping, studies, and reports. Could lead to new policies, funding requests, or use of authorities (e.g., loans, incentives) to secure U.S. port interests, involving agencies like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

Citizens and Economy: Indirectly protects U.S. economic prosperity by safeguarding supply chains and trade routes from PRC dominance, potentially reducing risks to jobs and industries reliant on secure maritime access.

International Relations: May strain U.S.-PRC ties by highlighting adversarial activities, while strengthening alliances through shared strategies for port security and alternatives to Chinese investments. Could promote global standards for transparent port operations, affecting trade partners and port-hosting nations.

Main Stakeholders Affected

U.S. Government: Departments of State and Defense (lead roles); congressional committees (oversight); other offices like intelligence agencies and the Maritime Administration (consultation/input).
Private Sector: U.S. and foreign port operators/owners; shipping companies (e.g., those using or competing with PRC-linked logistics like LOGINK); investors in maritime infrastructure.
Foreign Entities: PRC government and companies (e.g., China Ocean Shipping Company) under scrutiny; U.S. allies/partners with strategic ports (potential beneficiaries of U.S. alternatives).
Broader Groups: U.S. military/diplomatic personnel near affected ports (protected from threats); global trade communities reliant on open waterways.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Establishes mandatory timelines and interagency processes, enforceable through congressional oversight, but relies on executive discretion for implementation. The report's strategy recommendations could prompt future legislation for new authorities (e.g., investment restrictions) without violating trade agreements, as it emphasizes transparency over direct bans.

Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's powers over foreign affairs, commerce, and national defense (Article I, Section 8), enhancing executive-branch accountability via reporting to Congress.

Political: Signals bipartisan concern over PRC influence in critical infrastructure, potentially influencing U.S. foreign policy debates on competition with China. It promotes proactive national security without immediate confrontational actions, but the classified elements could fuel discussions on transparency in intelligence sharing.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-4]

Cosponsors (16)

Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1], Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large], Rep. Salazar, Maria Elvira [R-FL-27], Del. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large], Rep. Lawler, Michael [R-NY-17], Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6], Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4], Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41], Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large]

Recent Actions

2025-05-22: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
2025-05-22: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2025-05-22: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
2025-05-22: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
2025-05-22: Considered as unfinished business.
2025-05-19: At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Huizenga objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
2025-05-19: DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1701.
2025-05-19: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2116-2119; text: CR H2116-2117)
2025-05-19: Mr. Huizenga moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
2025-02-27: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-02-27: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-02-27: Introduced in House
2025-02-27: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Strategic Ports Reporting Act — issued 2025-05-22 — PDF (10 pages)
Strategic Ports Reporting Act — issued 2025-02-27 — PDF (8 pages)
Strategic Ports Reporting Act — issued 2025-05-22 — PDF (9 pages)